Forum:The Unquotable namespace

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 14:02, April 27, 2013 by SPIKE (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Unquotable namespace
Note: This topic has been unedited for 522 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


The question has come up at Votes for Deletion whether we should discontinue several namespaces that continue only because (1) Wikipedia has a shameless copy of them and (2) we used to have users who wanted to work in that area.

UnQuotable was the original focus of this discussion; some UnQuotable articles are not original new comedy but an attempt to assemble actual quotes in order to ridicule the utteror, who is thought "funny" on his own. UnDictionary has been attracting unvarnished crap lately. UnBestiary and UnVoyage were also mentioned. My opinion is that the Games space was a digression from the purpose of Uncyclopedia (the same could be said for UnNews, but it has a noble tradition and is still active and excellent), and that HowTo drew mostly kids who believed that the way to adulthood is through nagging.

My opinion is that the skeleton crew now manning the Mother Ship of Comedy is insufficient to maintain these spaces, even from assaults by the occasional Anon — but also insufficient to make such a radical decision to change (curtail) our mission. This ought to await the resolution of our current drama: Either that we make a clean break with the Fork — yes, including, finally, de-opping the renegade Admins — or that Uncyclopedia's less capable authors start trickling back (when they are either hit up for subscriptions or find that their creative work is receding behind the notorious "pay-wall" despite the stridently anti-capitalist management there). Either way, I welcome other opinions, only not hidden, on VFD, inside a vote to delete a single page. Spıke ¬ 13:49 17-Feb-13

From VFD

Unquotable:Charles Darwin
Score: 1
Elapsed Time: 14196 hours
Keep (0)

No keep votes.

Delete (1)
  1. Symbol delete vote Delete. I'm throwing this out to see if we want to trim back the UnQuotable project. I support its deletion, because scattershot lists of quotes are not funny. --Mn-z 10:59, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
  • Unquotable is a parody of Wikiquote. This means that it's essentially a scattershot of lists of quotes. Some of these are okay, given that it's a very limited frame. Most of them are terrible. And Unquotable:Steven Wright has recently been recreated, and as with previous incarnations is pretty woeful. While I'd agree with a massive trim on these pages (which I went through and trimmed out a lot of these a year ago, but VFD'd few of them), the namespace has it's place.                               Puppy's talk page11:04 17 Feb
    Just because Wikipedia does something doesn't mean we should copy it. An example is the fork's recent "UnVoyage" which is likely to turn into Ultra-Towncruft, if it isn't forgotten in a few months. While the unquotable format does parody an actual thing, it is not particularly conducive to writing good material. There is no good reason why there should be a quote page by Charles Darwin, and not one by, say Preggobear. I could create a quote page for Preggobear, but anything I can say there can be , and probably is, said better in paragraph format in the mainspace article. --Mn-z 11:18, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, but if we tried to do a Captain Oblivious article it... well, you can see what I ended up doing with it. I've trimmed this particular page down now to remove some of the worst quotes. (Although I agree - I see no value in UnVoyage. It'll go much the same way as UnBestiary in the end.)                               Puppy's talk page12:17 17 Feb
    My issue is that you are saving weak articles by moving them out of mainspace into a "crapspace" for lack of a better term. Articles like Captain Oblivious should stand or fall on their own merits, not hide their flaws behind a namespace. It would like moving Robotic ghost pirates to UnLegacyRandumbo:Robotic ghost pirates instead of taking it to VFD. --Mn-z 13:13, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
    Except that I didn't think it was VFD worthy. I felt it had merit, but not in the “frame” of mainspace. Otherwise we should delete UnDictionary because all the articles are stubs. Under that “frame”, this article works.                               Puppy's talk page01:42 17 Feb

Back to topic

I am an ardent supporter of namespaces as part of what we do here. The logic behind it comes from HTBFANJS#The Big Picture: Understand the "Frame" of the Uncyclopedia Setup. Each namespace has it's own merit as a frame of the article in question. A significant number of my articles go well outside of the frame, and as such end up in different namespaces (such as Game:Alone in the dark, HowTo:Change a Spare Tire, UnDebate:Is it ever right to restrict freedom of speech?). Many of them go outside the frame but create their own frame as part of that (like Microsoft knowledge base or Twitter). And one article mentioned above - which was not mine but I spent some time working on, Unquotable:Captain Oblivious.

These namespaces have their purpose. Of course, it means that we have a lot of articles in these namespaces that are not worth keeping. By the same token, in mainspace we have a lot of articles that are not worth keeping. And not all of them are based on Wikipedia spaces. Undebate was based upon debatepedia.org (which no longer exists) and Ungame was based upon computer games (not choose your own adventure, despite what wp:uncyclopedia says).

So, as a rule, I don't think we should delete any of these namespaces. I don't know that UnVoyage warrants a new userspace, much the same as Unbestiary doesn't require one either - both of these style of articles work within the existing frame. But the debate about Ungame has come up numerous times, and each time it's been kept. We are maintaining the site, and managing to trim out a significant amount of garbage. There's no reason to delete entire namespaces. Let's instead focus on the articles in every name space and get them right or get rid of them.                               Puppy's talk page02:18 17 Feb

Unquotable

I've always found it weird that our page on John Kennedy is an unquoteable page. Aleister 15:36 17-2-'13

Spaces like unNews, and unBooks, and unScripts exist not so much to create a frame, but to group similarly framed articles in one namespace. Fake news can be funny, fake books can be funny, but lists of quotes aren't particularly funny. There are about 37 (manual count, depending on what you consider an article) "unquotable" article pages, excluding navigation, help, and other meta pages. Deleting about 40 pages of content and 25 pages of support would not be that bold of an endeavor. But like Spike said, now isn't the time to do a vote for genocide. The list of unquotable space pages can be found at User:Mnbvcxz/quotespace.
Articles that consist of scattershot quotes simply aren't funny. That is why quotes have largely been trimmed back, even collections of good one-liners aren't funny. How many featured articles have had multiple header quotes since 2007? Simply put, it an article would be deleted in mainspace for being quotecruft, I don't see why it should survive in quotespace. Either the article should be deleted, or our deletion standards are too biased against unconventionally formatted articles. --Mn-z 18:30, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
37 is a tiny number! If we were to VFD (1) those articles that use real quotes, without adding original cleverness (that is, this article is funny because the things that guy says are funny because I disagree with him, as lately with Glenn Beck (Asshat); and (2) those articles that use unreal quotes to create a hatchet-job, then what remains would not have to be a namespace. Unquotable:John F. Kennedy is great, but it could be Unquotable John F. Kennedy or simply moved to mainspace where — indeed, Aleister — it belongs. Spıke ¬ 14:11 18-Feb-13
I concur. Is there anything in Quotespace worth saving that can't either be moved to mainspace or merged into existing articles? Some of the quotespace articles are in fact quote laden biographies, rather than quote-lists. Unquotable:Captain Oblivious is a biography, as is Unquotable:John F. Kennedy. Unquotable:Oscar Wilde should be merged with Making up Oscar Wilde quotes, and that database of quotes, even if it means losing a few gems such as, "I like to shove paint up my ass and fart random patterns onto canvas." --Mn-z 15:02, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
There is a current bias against using quotes in articles in mainspace. Thus, I am opposed to removing the Unquotable namespace, especially where mainspace articles redirect to the Unquotable namespace, as in Unquotable:Captain Oblivious. That article was how I found out what people meant by Captain Oblivious in the first place, and Captain Oblivious is referenced in several other Uncyclopedia articles. The quotes should be funny, and if they are a bit random, that does not necessarily exclude them from being funny. Unfortunately, many of the pages in the Unquotable namespace are poorly done, but that does not mean we should delete the entire namespace. Besides, we are a parody of Wikipedia, so it seems fitting to have a parody section of Wikiquotes. Where the individual pages are bad, delete them, but I'd hate to see the entire namespace go. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 00:27, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Merge if mainspace page isn't internally consistent?

Should we merge the quote pages with the article pages in instances in which the mainspace article is shattershot itself, or otherwise wouldn't be hurt by throwing a wad of quotes on the page? --Mn-z 20:25, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

The idea that a mainspace article could benefit from a ton of quotes is a really big if. Furthermore, as much as I think that Some user's need for a namespace all his own was not matched by service to the website, and as free as anyone is to Get Italic with articles, scooping out all the good stuff and then complaining that a page is empty ought not be an alternative to VFD. But yes, if there is good material in one of the Unquotable pages, let's keep it. Quotes should not just repeat a guy's error (Bush's "nucular" or "strategerie," Obama's "57 states" or "corpse-man") as a cheap shot; they should be something the guy said or would have said, but with original creativity, such as being perverted and yet still making a commentary on an actual misconception he was famous for. Spıke ¬ 20:37 18-Feb-13

There also are a few instances in which the quotespace page seems better than the mainspace equivalent. Compare Unquotable:Voltaire to Voltaire. The Unquotable version needs trimming, but the mainspace is unsavable. --Mn-z 20:33, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

I'd handle that case by VFD'ing Voltaire with a proposed recommendation attached. The trimming doesn't require a vote. Spıke ¬ 20:37 18-Feb-13

Cleanup

I've gone through and cleaned (aka purged) some of the articles. It looks like more than a few of them might be savable. However, I am still not sure that quote-based pages need their own namespace. At any rate, I would suggest that everyone who wants to keep quotespace help clean it up. --Mn-z 19:34, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Propositions

I'm listing viable propositions below. If anyone has any more, please add them. We'll put them to vote starting the 24th and vote closing 3rd March. That gives us plenty if time to list alternatives and then vote.                               Puppy's talk page11:21 18 Feb 2013

Proposal 1

I suggest if we have more than 20 pages in the namespace that are of “keep able” value that we keep the namespace. The argument against it is that most of the articles are poor quality. (I'd argue the same for Category:My sojourn personally.) Let's go through and VFD every page individually. It's a slower process, but given we have 37(?) pages in the namespace all told, it's not too huge a task to warrant a cherry picking approach. (A list of pages can be found at Special:PrefixIndex.) those that survive can either be moved to the mainspace as is - assuming no page by that name exists - or to [[subpage name (quotes)]] (which is where Unquotable:George W. Bush originally came from).                               Puppy's talk page11:21 18 Feb 2013

Proposal 2

Delete the namespace as it is, and move all the existing articles to main space. Then we delete them as part of normal maintenance.                               Puppy's talk page11:21 18 Feb 2013

Proposal 3

Leave the namespace as is. Maintain it piecemeal. (Or “business as usual”.)                               Puppy's talk page11:21 18 Feb 2013

Discussion

Puppy, thank you for formalizing this and for setting a timetable that both ensures a decision and is leisurely enough to get wide buy-in. The argument that we ought to have our own rendition of Wikiquotes is problematic, both in the case that we use real quotations and that we use made-up quotations, as I set out above. The Unquotable that we have is the idea of someone who is three-years gone, there are indications that he wanted his own fiefdom with his own rules more than an imitation of Wikipedia, and I believe we will find that fewer than 20 articles are keepable. PS: Without objection (in about 24 hours), I'll rename this Forum so as to indicate that the conversation has focused on Unquotable. Spıke ¬ 23:32 18-Feb-13

No opinion, the only one I've ever looked at in the John Kennedy page, which would be much better off as a regular "John Kennedy" article. Aleister 21:00 20-2-'13
Doing some rooting around, it looks like articles titled Making Up <insert name> Quotes were common at one time. In fact, some of the unquotable pages are still written as "making up quotes" pages. The quotespace does seem like it is not spawning articles, since there are only 37 real articles, most of which date from 2005 or 2006, and have basically stayed the same in essential nature. Some have gotten longer, but haven't gotten worse (or better). It looks like some unquotables have been deleted in the past, but it hasn't become the cruft-factory some people fear it might.
I'm not sure if unquotable should remain a namespace. I could assemble a SojurnSpace or a BUTTPOOP!!!! space, or a PregSpace if I just needed 20 related articles. There is a right way and a wrong way to create quote pages. The style should not be rejected out of hand, nor should be it granted immunity from quality control solely on the basis of namespace. --Mn-z 19:07, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects